planning committee agenda: 28 may 2015

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

1

Eden District Council

Planning Committee Agenda Committee Date: 28 May 2015

INDEX

Item No

Application Details Officer Recommendation

Page Number

1 Planning Application No: 14/1019

Installation of a 500kW wind turbine on a 46.9m monopole mast (77m to blade tip) and associated infrastructure including foundation, crane pad access track and underground cabling.

Barrockend Farm, Armathwaite, Carlisle, CA4 9TQ

Harmony Energy Limited

Recommended to:

REFUSE With Reasons

3


Variation of condition no.2 attached to planning approval 87/0880 comprising of A1 retail trading with no exclusions

Former Wickes Store, Ullswater Road, Penrith

District Estates Limited c/o Smith Nicholas

Recommended to:

APPROVE Subject to Conditions

15


Proposed alterations to extend parking layout and servicing reconfiguration

Former Wickes Store, Ullswater Road, Penrith

District Estates Limited c/o Smith Nicholas

Recommended to:

APPROVE Subject to Conditions 22


Proposed installation of a flue pipe and retrospective application for the siting of a satellite dish.

Old Dufton Hall Farmhouse, Dufton

Mr Parkin

Recommended to:

APPROVE Subject to Conditions 28

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

2

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

3

Item 1

Date of Committee: 28 May 2015

Planning Application No: 14/1019 Date Received: 20 November 2014

OS Grid Ref: 347401 547500 Expiry Date: 15 January 2015

Parish: Hesket Ward: Hesket

Application Type: Full

Proposal: Installation of a 500kW wind turbine on a 46.9m monopole mast (77m to blade tip) and associated infrastructure including foundation, crane pad access track and underground cabling.

Location: Barrockend Farm, Armathwaite, Carlisle, CA4 9TQ

Applicant: Harmony Energy Limited

Agent: T.J. Coates Ltd

Case Officer: Mr Daniel Addis

Reason for Referral: The application is for a wind turbine which has attracted a significant level of local objection

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

4

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its scale and siting in a prominent location on a sensitive ridgeline in an attractive open countryside, would have a significant and unacceptable level of harm to the character of the landscape in which it is to be sited which is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme contrary to CS20 and the NPPF.

2. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its scale and siting in a prominent location on a sensitive ridgeline, will result in a substantial and unacceptable level of harm to the visual amenity of the area including nearby residential properties, recreational visitors and the hamlet of Aiketgate which is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme contrary to CS20 and the NPPF.

2. Proposal and Site Description

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a wind turbine measuring 50m to the hub with a maximum blade tip height of 77m. The wind turbine is a three bladed machine on a cylindrical tower with a rated output of 500kw. Planning permission is sought for 20 years.

2.1.2 The turbine would require permanent infrastructure including; a new stretch of access track, a turbine foundation, a crane platform and two substations.

2.1.3 The turbine is predicted to generate just over 2076 MWh of electricity per year (enough to power 629 average homes) based on an average wind speed of 7m/s. The electricity generated from the turbine will connect directly into the National Grid with the farm benefitting from the rental income, the sale of the electricity and reducing the carbon footprint of the farm operations.

2.1.4 The application is supported by a design and access statement, an environmental and economic benefits statement, an ecological appraisal, an aviation report, a noise assessment and a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) with associated photomontages and Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) plan.

2.1.5 The environmental and economic benefits document submitted with the application sets out the benefits of the proposal including: reducing carbon emissions, meeting government renewables targets, supporting the rural economy and UK energy industry, creating and preserving jobs and helping the farm establish a community fund for local projects. A community fund is not a material planning consideration.

2.1.6 As required by legislation, the applicant has entered into the pre-application consultation process including taking into account the guidelines issued by Eden District Council. Following feedback from the first round of pre-application responses the turbine was moved to a new location closer to the farm and further away from the hamlet of Aiketgate. A further pre-application consultation was then undertaken based on the revised turbine location.

2.1.7 The Council advertised the application in the local press and undertook a post drop out to 2km to ensure a suitable level of consultation for the proposal.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

5

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The application site includes the existing access track which serves the farm and also a new stretch of access track. The turbine and immediately associated infrastructure forms part of an elevated agricultural field which slopes away in a north and east direction from the summit of Barrock Fell located to the west of the site. The main group of the Barrockend farm buildings are located approximately 200m southwest of the turbine location. A line of pylons run on a northwest – southeast route approximately 250m northeast of the turbine location.

2.2.2 Access to the site would be taken from the public road using the existing access point which serves the farm. The existing access track would largely be used although a new section of access track leading into the field and terminating at the crane platform/assembly point would be required.

2.2.3 No footpaths cross the site with the closest one (reference 328013) located to the southeast of the hamlet of Aiketgate (approximately 1.2km from the turbine location). The site is loosely bounded by public roads with the closest road being at the farm access approximately 500m from the turbine location.

2.2.4 The closest residential properties are Barrock End Farm House (325m SSW) and Beeches (369m SSW). Both of these properties are financially involved i.e. they have a financial interest in the application. The next closest properties are Barrock End Cottages (664m S) and Oak Bank (738m SE).

2.2.5 The nearest settlements are Aiketgate (1.1km SE) and Low Hesket (1.35km SW).

3. Statutory Consultees

Consultee Response

Highways Authority No objection subject to a traffic management plan being secured by condition

Environmental Health No objection subject to conditions relating to noise

Tree Officer No objection subject to conditions relating to a method statement to protect trees along delivery route

North Pennines AONB Object

Carlisle Airport No objection

The MOD No objection

Joint Radio Company (JRC) Cleared with respect to radio link infrastructure

Vodafone No objection

County Archaeologist No objection subject to condition

3.1 Below is a more detailed response of the objections outlined above:

3.2 North Pennines AONB

“However, from our assessment of it, we have significant concerns about this proposal

and we question how it could be supported under current local and national policy; in

this location and at this scale it is felt to be likely to have, in some views, a significant

impact on the purposes of AONB designation.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

6

Accordingly, we object to the application as made.”

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate

Parish Council/Meeting

Object Support No Response No View Expressed

Hesket Parish Council

√

4.1 “Hesket Parish Council do not support commercial windturbine applications.

The reason for this is below:

1. Visual impact on the area and will dominate the landscape 2. Nearby residential properties could cause residents to suffer from noise and could

cause sleeping issues and stress 3. The siting of the turbine will have a negative effect on value of surrounding property

prices 4. The wildlife natural habitat will be disturbed 5. Councillors are also concerned about further wind turbines 6. Local residents are totally opposed to this application and feel that this application

has no benefit to this area 7. Local residents wish to keep the Eden Valley pure, as it is a naturally beautiful area,

and feel this natural beauty is an asset to be enjoyed by all who live in the area and people visiting the area.”

5. Representations

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 15 December 2014.

No of Neighbours Consulted 168 No of letters of support 10

No of Representations Received

365 No of observations 12

No of objection letters 343

In addition to the above representations an online petition was set up via Change.org which 188 people have signed to date.

5.2 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are material considerations to the application:

the proposal is contrary to policy

unacceptable change to the character of the landscape

unacceptable visual impact on local amenity of the area

unacceptable impact on the Eden Valley and the tributary rivers

cumulative impact with other turbines

adverse impact on the AONB and the National Park

adverse impact on tourism and the economy

adverse impact on nature conservation and the environment

impact on birds and bats

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

7

impact on flora and fauna

impact on noise, shadow flicker, vibration and related health concerns

impact on listed buildings and schedule monuments

pre-application consultation was inadequate

impact on residential amenity of closest properties

inappropriate size and scale

incompatible with national planning policy

adverse impact on telecommunications

the turbine will not create jobs

adverse impact on trees

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:

the applicant has not stated which model of turbine will be chosen

this turbine is not medium scale

the turbine will be de-rated to 500kw

no generated power will be used on the farm

a full environmental impact assessment is required

the shadow flicker assessment is incorrect

reduction in property prices

inefficiency and shortcomings of wind power

subsidies for turbines cost the tax payer money

this application will set a precedent

there is no need for further turbines

turbines should be sited at sea

wind turbines are not safe

the proposed community benefit fund

there are better locations for onshore turbines

5.4 Ten letters of support were received which provided the following comments:

the importance of farm diversification

wind turbines are encouraged by the Government

the turbine is well sited away from houses and will have no adverse noise or flicker impacts

the importance of reducing the carbon footprint of farms

5.5 Twelve letters of observation were received, some of which included commentary that appeared to be objections. The comments are as set out below:

the turbine is a blot on the landscape

there will be noise and shadow flicker issues

turbines are inefficient

landscape and visual amenity concerns

impact on telecommunications

adverse effect on tourism

5.6 Letters of objection were also received from Westnewton Action Group, Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery and also Friends of Rural Cumbria’s Environment. A summary of their objections is included in the above bullet points.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

8

5.7 An action group – NO2AWT (No Aiketgate Wind Turbine) has been set up in response to the application. The group has a website and a Facebook page and has provided a number of submissions to the application including: a critique of the applicant’s planning submission; an assessment of the impact on landscape character and visual amenity; consideration of noise; shadow flicker and strobe related health concerns; consideration of the impact of the turbine on nature conservation and the environment; consideration of the impact of the turbine on amenity, tourism and the economy; the impact of the turbine on telecommunications including broadband; a critique of the applicants pre-application consultation; concerns of inefficiency and shortcomings of wind generated power.

6. Relevant Planning History

There is no relevant planning history

7. Policy Context

7.1 Development Plan

Eden Local Plan Saved Policies

NE1: Development in the Countryside

NE13: Protection of Trees

BE9: Protection and Recording of Archaeological Remains

NR1: Protection of Groundwater

Core Strategy Policies

CS1 Sustainable Development Principles

CS12 Principles for Economic Development and Tourism

CS16 Principles for the Natural Environment

CS17 Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment

CS18 Design of New Development

CS20 Renewable Energy

Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Building a strong, competitive economy

Supporting a prosperous rural economy

Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)

National Energy Policy

Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Document

The documents and policies detailed above are the most relevant relating to this application.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

9

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 Key/Main Planning Issues

Principle

Benefits

Landscape Impacts

Visual Impacts

Residential Amenity

Infrastructure and Aviation

Natural Environment

Historic Environment

8.2 Principle

8.2.1 The principle of the proposal is supported by Core Strategy policy CS20 which supports renewable energy proposals where there are no significant unacceptable effects which cannot be mitigated or are not outweighed by the national or regional need for renewable energy development or the wider environmental, social and economic benefits that the scheme may bring. The principle of renewable energy development is also supported at a national level through the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) . Of particular note is paragraph 93 which advises that “planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure” and paragraph 98 which recognises that “even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions”. The National Planning Practice Guidance (the NPPG) makes it clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections or the planning concerns of local communities.

8.3 Benefits

With regards to the benefits of the scheme; the proposal would result in an important contribution to the national renewable energy resource and the reduction of greenhouse gases through the operation of the turbine. At a local level the electricity generated from the turbine will connect directly into the grid. The electricity generated alongside the ground rent will be a guaranteed and secure income to the farm which will help reduce overheads and reduce the farm’s carbon footprint. It is estimated that the turbine would produce approximately 2076 MWh of electricity per year (enough to power 629 average homes) based on an average wind speed of 7m/s.

A community fund for local projects is also proposed by the applicant however this is not a material planning consideration.

8.4 Landscape Impacts

8.4.1 The turbine is proposed on an elevated site to the north of Barrockend Farm and the east of Barrock Fell. The landscape is agricultural in nature with field boundaries made up of stone, post and wire fences and hedgerows. The landscape is interspersed by areas of woodland. There are a number of residential properties within 1km of the site

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

10

and the hamlet of Aiketgate is approximately 1km to the southeast of the site. The turbine would be sited approximately 7.7km from the North Pennines AONB and 15km from the Lake District National Park.

8.4.2 The Cumbria Wind Energy SPD (the SPD) identifies the site within Landscape Character Type 10: Sandstone Ridge which has a moderate overall sensitivity to wind energy development. The SPD identifies that the ridge is a distinctive landscape feature which shows some signs of man-made influence including large agricultural buildings, pylons (at the foot of the ridge) and telecommunication masts. Notwithstanding these man-made influences the SPD describes the area as a rural lightly settled landscape which feels balanced and calm. The LVIA submitted with the application concludes that at near distance the proposal would be significant, in middle distance views the proposal would have a moderate overall effect on the character of the view, and at far distant views visual impact, sensitivity and magnitude will be low. Having visited the site and surrounding viewpoints, taken into account the LVIA assessment and submission from objectors, these conclusions appear to be reasonable with the exception that in middle distance views the effects would be significant/moderate given the sites elevated position and the sensitivity of the landscape.

8.4.3 No cumulative assessment of turbines was submitted with the application however given the distance between the proposal and the nearest turbines any cumulative effect would be negligible. There are other vertical man-made structures in the area surrounding the site including telecommunications masts and a run of pylons. The proposal would be seen in the context of these structures and would lead to further erosion of the balanced and calmness of the landscape.

8.4.4 With regards to the effects of the turbine on the character of the landscape; the turbine is a large man-made structure which will appear prominent in the locality particularly given its siting on an elevated ridge. The landscape is sensitive to wind energy development given its elevated nature seen in the context of the relatively flat surrounding valley. The overall sensitivity is increased by the existence of other man-made vertical features including pylons and the telecommunications masts. Whilst this is not an undisturbed landscape, the introduction of a turbine at this site will be highly prominent and will alter the character of the landscape when considered alone and cumulatively with the other man-made structures. Whilst the turbine would be visible from the North Pennines AONB it is not considered that at this range – approximately 7.7km – that the turbine would result in significant and unacceptable harm.

8.5 Visual Impacts

8.5.1 The sensitive visual receptors in the locality primarily include residential properties and recreational users. Further afield visual receptors will include users of the A6 and the M6 although they will have a lower sensitivity to the proposal.

8.5.2 The nearest uninvolved properties, Barrock End Cottages, are located 664m south of the turbine and face north and south with the principle elevations facing onto the public road to the south. From the houses and their gardens the turbine would appear to be screened by the avenue of trees along the access to the farm. The next closest uninvolved property is Oak Bank located 717m southeast of the turbine which faces north and south and would have clear views of the majority of the turbine with the lower sections of the mast being obscured by trees. No viewpoints have been prepared from these nearest properties.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

11

8.5.3 Beyond the nearest properties outlined above there are a high number of residential properties particularly in Aiketgate. Some of these properties will have views of the turbine from their principal elevations and garden grounds and the turbine will also be highly visible from areas of the hamlet including the start of a nearby footpath. The turbine will also be visible from other recreational facilities nearby including High Stand and a range of cycle routes as highlighted by public objections to the scheme. Users of these facilities and routes are sensitive to wind energy proposals which affect the character of the area. The village of Low Hesket is located approximately 1.2km from the turbine although the turbine will not be visible from the village.

8.5.4 Impact on tourism has been raised as an objection however it is very difficult to quantify this. Several academic reports advise that the impact of turbines has a marginal impact on tourism and more often than not does not affect the likelihood of tourist returning to an area.

8.5.5 With regards to the visual amenity of the area and having regard to the scale and location of the turbine, the sensitivity of nearby residential properties and also the users of the nearby recreational routes, combined with the overall sensitivity of the area, it is considered that the turbine would result in a considerable adverse effect on local visual amenity.

8.6 Residential Amenity

8.6.1 With regards to flicker the turbine is sited further than 10 x the rotor diameter (540m) from any nearby uninvolved properties and therefore shadow flicker is not an issue. Concern has also been raised that the turbine could flicker on nearby roads and distract drivers however based on the siting of the turbine well away from public roads, this would not be possible.

8.6.2 With regards to noise a detailed noise assessment has been submitted with the application which demonstrates that the proposal complies with ETSU-R-97 – the industry standard assessment for assessing noise generated from turbines. Concern has been raised that noise measurements were not calculated from Aiketgate however this is not necessary given that the effects were acceptable at the closest properties.

8.6.3 A number of concerns have been raised by objectors regarding a number of health concerns including loss of sleep, vibration and anxiety. Whilst it is recognised that there is a wealth of information, including medical papers and journal extracts, relating to these effects the Environmental Health department has raised no concerns with regards to public safety and therefore little weight can be attributed to these concerns on the evidence available at this time.

8.7 Infrastructure and Aviation

8.7.1 A number of concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the turbine on communications in the area including broadband and mobile phone signals. The application has not attracted any objections from the telecommunication bodies and it is considered that a condition could be applied to the permission to secure a baseline assessment and proposed mitigation if it was found that the turbine would affect telecommunications in the area. It is of note that telecommunications operators are currently upgrading their infrastructure (where necessary) in the Eden area to improve signal and provide for the rollout of 4G.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

12

8.7.2 With regards to impact on the highways, the construction stage is relatively short and the disruption would be minimal. In accordance with the Highway Authorities comments a condition could be applied to secure a traffic management plan to minimise disruption.

8.7.3 With regards to proximity to the nearby infrastructure the turbine has been sited clear of pylons (topple distance plus 10% - 87m) and is clear of the nearby gas pipeline.

8.7.4 With regards to aviation The Ministry of Defence and Carlisle Airport have raised no objections to the application.

8.8 Natural Environment

8.8.1 The applicant has commissioned an ecological appraisal which included a phase 1 habitat survey, a bat activity survey and a breeding bird survey. Concerns have been raised by a number of objectors that the level of survey work was inadequate which is disputed by the author of the appraisal. The ecological appraisal gives a good overview of the site and is a useful tool in considering the environmental impact that the turbine will have on the area and species in the area.

8.8.2 The appraisal identifies one statutory site within 2km of the site - the River Eden Special Area of Conservation/Site of Special Scientific Interest (SAC/SSSI) and two non-statutory sites within 2km of the site – the High Stand Plantation Site of Invertebrate Significance at 1km and the Black Moss Pool Site of Invertebrate Significance at 940m. Given the separation distances it is considered that the proposal would not have an effect on these sites. The application site itself is improved pasture field which has a low ecological sensitivity.

8.8.3 The appraisal identifies a number of species in and around the site which have the potential to be affected by the proposal. In accordance with Natural England guidance the turbine has been sited further than 50m from the field boundaries to protect bats. Ground nesting birds may be affected by the proposal although their protection could be secured by a planning condition (as suggested by the appraisal). Indirect effects including disturbance have the potential for some species to be displaced and whilst this is not desirable it would not be to such a degree that it would warrant the application to be refused. No trees will be significantly affected by the proposal although some light pruning may be required to the trees along the avenue to the farm. The Council’s tree officer has recommended a condition to secure details of the tree works required prior to the commencement of the development.

8.8.4 Concern has been raised that the turbine could leak contaminants into the soil and in turn the water table. In response to this a pollution prevention plan including an emergency response plan following an incident could be required by condition if it was felt to be necessary though a condition of this nature is not often applied to single turbine schemes.

8.9 Historic Environment

8.9.1 The closest listed building to the turbine is East Lodge – a Grade II listed building located 1.4km west of the turbine. Based on the applicant’s zone of theoretical visibility map (ZTV) the property will not experience any views of the turbine. The next closest listed building is Barrock Gill – a Grade II listed building at 1.7km from the turbine. Again, according to the applicant’s ZTV the property will not experience any views of the turbine. There are no further listed buildings within 2km of the turbine and the effects at these properties would be less than substantial.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

13

8.9.2 The nearest conservation area is the Settle- Carlisle railway line – 3km east of the turbine. At this range the impact of the turbine would again be less than substantial.

8.9.3 The area surrounding the turbine is of some archaeological importance as highlighted by objections received against the application. The closest Scheduled Monument is the ‘slight univallate hillfort on Barrock Fell’ located approximately 800m east of the proposed turbine. The proposal would not impact on this directly however it would have an effect on its setting. The county archaeologist has commented that he has no objection to the application subject to a condition requiring a watching brief.

9. Planning Balance

9.1 There is strong policy support for renewable energy development at the international, national and local level. Importantly where harm is identified the benefits must outweigh the harm (NPPF test and also Core Strategy policy CS20 test). The proposal would result in far reaching benefits through the generation of electricity through a renewable source. The harm as a result of the turbine would be to the character of the landscape, both alone and cumulatively with other vertical man-made infrastructure, and also the visual amenity of the area.

9.2 On balance it is considered that the level of harm on the character of the landscape and the visual amenity of the area is not outweighed by the benefits. In light of this it is considered that the proposal does not accord with the development plan when taken as a whole and is not supported by material considerations including the NPPF and PPG.

10. Implications

10.1 Legal Implications

10.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise.

10.2 Equality and Diversity

10.2.1 The Council must have regard to the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment, and the promotion of equality under the Equality Act 2010.

10.3 Environment

10.3.1 The Council must have due regard to conserving bio-diversity under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

10.4 Crime and Disorder

10.4.1 Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Council must have regard to the need to reduce crime and disorder in exercising any of its functions.

10.5 Children

10.5.1 Under the Children Act 2004, the Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the exercise of any of its functions.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

14

10.6 Human Rights

10.6.1 In determining applications, the Council must ensure that all parties get a fair hearing in compliance with the provisions of Article 6 under the European Convention on Human Rights, as now embodied in UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

11. Conclusion

11.2 It is considered that the proposal does not accord to the Development Plan for the following reasons which are not outweighed by material considerations:

1. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its scale and siting in a prominent location on a sensitive ridgeline in an attractive open countryside, would have a significant and unacceptable level of harm to the landscape in which it is to be sited which is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme contrary to CS20 and the NPPF.

2. The proposed turbine, by virtue of its scale and siting in a prominent location on a sensitive ridgeline, will result in a substantial and unacceptable level of harm to the visual amenity of the area including nearby residential properties, recreational visitors and the hamlet of Aiketgate which is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme contrary to CS20 and the NPPF.

Gwyn Clark Head of Planning Services

Background Papers: Planning File

Checked by or on behalf of the Monitoring Officer

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

15

Item 2


Planning Application No: 15/0250 Date Received: 23 March 2015

OS Grid Ref: 351140-329796 Expiry Date: 19 June 2015

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Removal or variation of condition

Proposal: Variation of condition no.2 attached to planning approval 87/0880 comprising of A1 retail trading with no exclusions

Location: Former Wickes Store, Ullswater Road, Penrith

Applicant: District Estates Limited c/o Smith Nicholas

Agent: J10 Planning Limited

Case Officer: Mr J Tweddle

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested to address the Planning Committee

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

16

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application is approved.


2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The application is a variation of condition no.2 attached to panning approval 87/0880 which was granted on 15 October 1987 for the construction of a non-food retail store with loading and car park facilities on the site of the former goods yard, Ullswater Road, Penrith. Condition no.2 of this approval states:

“The development hereby permitted shall be used for the purposes of retailing D.I.Y., home and garden improvement and car maintenance products, building materials and builders merchants goods only and for no other purpose within Class A1 of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987”.

2.1.2 The proposal seeks to vary condition no.2 in order to widen the range of goods sold to allow for A1 retail trading with no restrictions.

2.1.3 The unit is currently occupied by Wickes, however, the applicant has stated that the existing tenant is due to vacate the premises in June 2015. The existing tenant is not currently trading from the premises.

2.1.4 The applicant has suggested that the current trading restrictions are prohibitive to securing a new tenant for the premises and hence this application to vary the condition on the original planning permission.

2.1.5 A separate planning application has been submitted to seek permission for the reconfiguration of the servicing area and to alter the parking layout to accommodate additional parking spaces required to accommodate a food retailer on site. As such this does not form part of the planning assessment for this application. It is considered that should permission be granted for the proposed variation of condition, as outlined in this application, this could be implemented separately and regardless of the outcome of the other planning application.


2.2.1 The site is the former Wickes store adjacent to Penrith Railway Station on Ullswater Road in Penrith. The site area is 0.62ha and the floor space of the unit measures approximately 1,976m2.

2.2.2 The site is currently accessed by both pedestrians and vehicles from Ullswater Road.


Consultee Response

Highways Authority - Cumbria County Council

No objection

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

17

4. Representations

4.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 9 April 2015.



3 No of neutral representations 0



Highway safety due to an increase in traffic turning into and out of the site from Ullswater Road

Impact upon independent retailers in the town centre

Impact upon the character of the local environment

Penrith does not need any more supermarkets


Application No. Description Outcome

87/0880 Retail non-food store with loading and car parking facilities

Approved 15 October 1987

96/0362 Relaxation of condition on existing planning permission to widen the range of goods which can be sold from the premises

Approved 18 July 1996

13/0712 Application for lawful development certificate to confirm the lawful implementation of application 96/0362 allowing the sale of non-food retail goods (excluding clothing, shoes, toys, and fashion accessories)

Approved 6 November 2013

6. Policy Context


CS1 – Sustainable Development Principles

CS23 - Hierarchy of Retail Centres

6.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Section 2 - Ensuring the vitality of town centres

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

18

6.3 Other material considerations

Eden District Retail Study – Evidence Update 2014

The policies detailed above are the most relevant policies relating to this application.



i. Whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the viability and

vitality of the town centre

ii. Impact on highway safety

7.2 Impact on the viability and vitality of Penrith Town Centre

7.2.1 The application site is located 280m from the southern edge of the defined ‘Established Shopping Area’, as shown on the Eden Local Plan (1996) Proposals Map. However, the retail policies within the 1996 Eden Local Plan have since expired and as such the policy basis upon which to assess this application is policy CS23 of the council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010) and the retail policies set out in paragraphs 23 to 27 of the NPPF.

7.2.2 Policy CS23 confirms support for maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of town and district centres across the district, with Penrith being identified as the Main Town Centre within Eden. Whilst policy CS23 enjoys a degree of consistency with the key objectives of the NPPF it is considered that the up-to-date retail policy tests relating to new retail development contained within the NPPF should take precedence in assessing this application.

7.2.3 The NPPF confirms that, for retail purposes, an edge of centre site is defined as ‘a location that is well connected and up to 300m of the primary shopping area’. Current policy does not define a primary shopping area within Penrith Town Centre, however, the application site is approximately 280m from the southern edge of the defined ‘Established Shopping Area’ and benefits from good pedestrian and public transport linkages with the town centre and, as such, the site can be classed as edge-of-centre in retail policy terms.

7.2.4 The NPPF sets out two key tests that should be applied when planning for town centre uses which are not within an existing centre and which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan: 1) the sequential test; and, 2) an impact assessment.

7.2.5 The sequential test is carried out to identify alternative sites within or closer to the town centre and assess their suitability for accommodating the proposed retail use. The application is supported by a sequential site assessment which gives consideration to a number of other sites within Penrith Town Centre. The sequential test is satisfied if an appropriate assessment is carried out of alternative sites within, or closer to, the town centre and the conclusion is that these sites would not be suitable or available to accommodate the proposed use, which in this case is 1,976m2 of retail floorspace. The assessment of alternative sites is as follows:

Site Assessment

Miners Arms, Southend The applicant’s conclusions are accepted that the site is

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

19

unsuitable to accommodate a retail unit of the scale and format subject to the current planning application. Furthermore, it is noted that planning permission was granted in February 2015 for the redevelopment of the Miner’s Arms Public House and adjacent former Tinkler’s Garage to provide 24 residential units (Ref. 14/0536). An application has recently been submitted for the discharge of conditions imposed on the approval (Ref. 15/0155) and, as such, it is also apparent that the site could not be considered to be reasonably available.

White Horse, Princes Street It is accepted that the site unsuitable to accommodate a retail unit of the scale and format subject to the current planning application.

Mansion House, Friargate It is accepted that the site unsuitable to accommodate a retail unit of the scale and format subject to the current planning application.

Units within New Squares A number of vacant units remain within the New Squares development, although it is evident that none of the available units are individually of sufficient size to accommodate the level of retail floorspace subject of the current proposals.

There may be scope to amalgamate individual units within New Squares to form a single larger format unit, however, it is not considered that any of the existing vacant units could realistically be adapted to provide a unit of the scale and format subject to the current application proposals and as such it is therefore accepted that units within New Squares can be discounted on the grounds of suitability.

7.2.6 Paragraph 26 of the NPPF advises that, when assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, Local Planning Authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold. There is currently no locally adopted threshold within Eden and as such the default threshold is 2,500m2 as set out in the NPPF. As the current application is for 1,976m2 of A1 retail floorspace, the threshold is not met and as such there is no requirement for a retail impact assessment to be carried out.

7.2.7 On receipt of the application the council commissioned independent retail planning consultants to review the application against current planning policy and guidance, and to consider the impacts of the proposal on Penrith Town Centre. The conclusions of the report prepared by the retail planning consultants (attached in appendix 1) found that:

i. The retail planning policies of the NPPF should take primacy in assessing the current proposal.

ii. The application site is considered to be edge of centre in retail policy terms and enjoys good pedestrian linkages with the town centre.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

20

iii. The proposals satisfy the sequential test as set out in the NPPF and there is agreement that there would be no other alternative sites within the town centre capable of accommodating the retail floorspace subject of the current application.

iv. The floorspace (1,976m2) falls short of the NPPF threshold for the requirement of a retail impact assessment.

v. The Eden Retail Review Update (2014) identifies that there is potential for a small amount of amount of additional convenience shopping floorspace (2,000m2) within Penrith, equivalent to a small supermarket.

vi. While impact considerations would not form reasonable grounds for withholding planning permission, it is not considered that current proposals would give rise to significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of Penrith Town Centre.

7.2.8 A material consideration in the assessment of this application is the Eden Retail Review Update (2014) which identifies that there is the potential for a small amount of additional convenience shopping floorspace (approximately 2,000m2). Furthermore, the same study states that there is significantly greater potential to support new comparison shopping development within Penrith. On this basis it is not considered likely that an unrestricted A1 retail offer available from the application site would cause significant adverse impacts to town centre trading and would therefore not form reasonable grounds for withholding planning permission.

7.2.9 In light of this and the advice from the Council’s Retail Planning Consultants, it is no longer considered appropriate to restrict the retail offer of the application site. A condition requiring such a restriction would not be considered to be necessary or reasonable when assessed against current planning policy.

7.2.10 Taking into account the conclusions of the retail planning consultant’s report and when assessed against the relevant policies of the development plan, the NPPF and the PPG it is considered that the application accords with the development plan and is not outweighed by any material considerations that would indicate the contrary.

7.2.11 In conclusion, officers are satisfied that: there are no sequentially preferable sites capable of accommodating the proposed retail floorspace; there is unlikely to be a harmful adverse impact on the viability and vitality of Penrith town centre; and that the key retail policy tests set out within the NPPF have been satisfied. In these regards the application is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the development plan.

7.3 Impact on highway safety

7.3.1 Objectors have raised concerns over highway safety suggesting that the proposal would lead to an increase in traffic accessing the site from (Ullswater Road) and as a consequence result in dangerous traffic movements that could cause vehicle collisions or endanger pedestrians.

7.3.2 There is no evidence to support the claims made by objectors regarding this matter and the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. Furthermore, with regards to transport and accessibility, the site is considered to be in a highly accessible location close to good bus and rail links offered from the adjacent Penrith Railway Station.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

21

7.3.3 In this regard the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policy CS1 of the Eden Core Strategy.

8. Implications


8.1.1 The following matters have been considered but no issues are judged to arise:



8.3 Environment




8.5 Children


8.6 Human Rights


9. Conclusion

9.1 It is considered that the proposal accords to the Development Plan for the following reasons:

i. The proposal satisfies the sequential test as set out in paragraph 24 of the NPPF.

ii. The proposal is unlikely to give rise to significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of Penrith Town Centre.


Background Papers: Planning File 15/0250

APPENDIX 1: Retail Planning Advice from England & Lyle, Charted Town Planners.


Gateway House 55 Coniscliffe Road

Darlington County Durham

DL3 7EH

Tel: 01325 469236 Mail: [email protected]

Directors: I.H Lyle BSc(Hons), MPhil, MRTPI J.R England MBE, BA(Hons), PhD, DipTP, MRTPI J.J.A. Good BA(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI

VAT Registration No. 660033965 Registered in England No. 3409505

Registered Address: Gateway House (as above)

England & Lyle Ltd

www.england-lyle.co.uk

Mr Jeff Tweddle, Our Ref. 15/068/GJS Planning Services, Eden District Council, Mansion House, Penrith, CA11 7YG

28th April 2015

Dear Jeff, RE: S.73 APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 3/87/0880 WICKES, ULLSWATER ROAD, PENRITH We are writing to provide an independent review of a S.73 application which seeks to widen the range of goods sold to allow for A1 retail trading (of both convenience and comparison goods) with no exclusions; to extend the lawful trading hours and external layout, parking and servicing at Wickes, Ullswater Road, Penrith (LPA Ref. 15/0250). This review is intended to advise the LPA on the extent to which the proposals comply with both local and national retail policy. Planning permission was granted in 1987 for a retail non-food unit with loading and car parking facilities and Condition 2 of the approval restricted the range of goods to be sold from the unit to DIY, home and garden improvement and car maintenance products, building materials and builders merchants goods only. The unit is currently occupied by Wickes, however, the submitted Planning Statement advises that the existing tenant is due to vacate the premises in June 2015 and pull out of Penrith due to trading pressure from B&Q. The submission suggests that the current trading restrictions, as well as trading hours and parking restrictions, are prohibitive to securing a new tenant for the premises. The application site is unallocated within the Eden Local Plan (1996) and lies approximately 280m from the southern edge of the defined ‘Established Shopping Area,’ as shown on the adjacent Proposals Map extract. However, the retail based policies of the Eden Local Plan have expired. The Eden Core Strategy was adopted in March 2010 and sets out the vision, aims and strategy for spatial development in Eden District up to 2025 and beyond. Policy CS23 of the adopted Core Strategy confirms that support will be given to maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of the hierarchy of town and district centres across the District, with Penrith identified as the Main Town Centre within Eden. Policy CS23 indicates that retail and other town centre development of a scale appropriate to the roles

Liane

Typewritten Text

Liane

Typewritten Text

Liane

Typewritten Text

Appendix

Liane

Typewritten Text

1

of the town and district centres will be supported, provided that the development respects the character of the environment of the centre, including its special architectural and historic interest, and assists in maintaining its existing retail function. The adoption of the Eden Core Strategy pre-dates the publication of the NPPF and, whilst Policy CS23 enjoys a degree of consistency with the key objectives of the NPPF in terms of maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of the existing centres within the District, it is considered that the up-to-date retail policy tests relating to new retail development contained within the NPPF should take primacy in assessing the current proposals. The NPPF confirms that, for retail purposes, edge of centre is defined as ‘a location that is well connected and up to 300m of the primary shopping area.’ There is no defined primary shopping area within Penrith Town Centre, however, the application site lies approximately 280m from the southern edge of the defined ‘Established Shopping Area’ and enjoys good pedestrian linkages with the town centre and, as such, we are of the opinion that the site should be classed as edge-of-centre in retail policy terms. The NPPF sets out two key tests that should be applied when planning for town centre uses which are not within an existing centre and which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan – the sequential and impact test. The accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) confirms that the sequential test should be considered first as this may identify that there are preferable sites in town centres for accommodating main town centre uses and therefore negate the requirement to undertake the impact test. The impact test determines whether there would be likely significant adverse impacts of locating main town centre development outside of existing town centres but only applies above certain floorspace thresholds. We will therefore seek to review the current proposals against the sequential and impact tests. Sequential Test Paragraph 24 of the NPPF confirms that LPAs should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge-of-centre locations and, only if suitable sites are not available, should out-of-centre sites be considered. The guidance advises that, when considering edge-of-centre and out-of-centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre. Applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. PPG is clear that it is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and its application should be proportionate and appropriate for the given proposal. PPG sets out the following considerations that should be taken into account in determining whether a proposal complies with the sequential test:

With due regard to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility, has the suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal been considered? Where the proposal would be located in an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre location, preference should be given to accessible

sites that are well-connected to the town centre. Any associated reasoning should be set out clearly.

Is there scope for flexibility in the format and / or scale of the proposal. It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge-of-centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal.

If there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed. A recent appeal decision relating to Rushden Lakes (PINS Ref. APP/G2815/V/12/2190175) provides guidance on the application of the sequential test and the following extracts from the Inspector’s Decision Letter are considered to be of particular relevance:

‘The policy concerning the sequential approach as set out in the NPPF, and (to the extent that it is still relevant) the non-policy PG that accompanied PPS4, must be applied in a manner which complies with the legally binding case law on the meaning of the sequential approach. Plainly the case in question (Dundee) is of seminal importance.’ (Paragraph 8.44) ‘In summary, it [Dundee] establishes [a] that if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question then it is not a suitable size for the purposes of the sequential approach; and [b] that in terms of the size of the alternative site, provided that the applicant has demonstrated flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question is whether the alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit the alternative site.’ (Paragraph 8.45) ‘There is no suggestion here [Paragraph 24 of the NPPF] that the sequential test means to refer to anything other than the application proposal.’ (Paragraph 8.46) ‘Had the Government intended to retain disaggregation as a requirement it would and should have explicitly stated this in the NPPF. If it had intended to carry on with the requirement then all that would have been required is the addition of the word “disaggregation” at the end of the NPPF [24].’ (Paragraph 8.47)

The Inspector’s findings in respect of the application of the sequential test were endorsed within the Secretary of State’s call-in decision issued on 11th June 2014. It is noted that the submitted Planning Statement seeks to question whether the application of the sequential test is required in this instance given the proposals are merely seeking to adapt an existing retail use to extend the range of goods that can be sold from the unit rather than involving a new build proposal. However, it is clear that the adoption of such an approach would essentially defeat the entire

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319505/Called-in_decision_-_Rushden_Lakes_Retail_Park__ref_2190175__11_June_2014_.pdf

purpose of imposing range of goods conditions in the first place. Furthermore, we are aware of numerous appeal cases for similar proposals where the sequential test has been applied and, accordingly, we do not agree with the applicant’s suggestion that it is arguable that the sequential test is not required in this instance. Notwithstanding this, the submitted Planning Statement includes a sequential site assessment, which gives consideration to a number of sites within Penrith Town Centre and we are satisfied that this forms an appropriate area of search in terms of the application of the sequential test. The table contained below sets out the assessed sites alongside England & Lyle’s comments in respect of suitability and availability:

Site England & Lyle Assessment

Miners Arms, Southend We would accept the applicant’s conclusions that the site is unsuitable to accommodate a retail unit of the scale and format subject to the current planning application. Furthermore, it is noted that planning permission was granted in February 2015 for the redevelopment of the Miner’s Arms Public House and adjacent former Tinkler’s Garage to provide 24 No. residential units (LPA Ref. 14/0536). An application has recently been submitted for the discharge of conditions imposed on the approval (LPA Ref. 15/0155) and, as such, it is also apparent that the site could not be considered to be reasonably available.

White Horse, Princes Street We accept the applicant’s conclusions that the site unsuitable to accommodate a retail unit of the scale and format subject to the current planning application.

Mansion House, Friargate We accept the applicant’s conclusions that the site unsuitable to accommodate a retail unit of the scale and format subject to the current planning application.

Units within New Squares There remain a number of vacant units within the New Squares development, although it is evident that none of the available units are individually of sufficient size to accommodate the level of retail floorspace subject of the current proposals. There may be scope to amalgamate individual units within New Squares to form a single larger format unit, however, it is not considered that any of the existing vacant units could realistically be adapted to provide a unit of the scale and format subject to the current application proposals and we would therefore accept that units within New Squares can be discounted on the grounds of suitability.

We are unaware of any other available sites or premises within Penrith Town Centre and we are therefore satisfied with the applicant’s conclusions that there are no alternative sites within the town centre capable of accommodating the retail floorspace subject of the current application.

Paragraph 24 of the NPPF advises that, when assessing edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well-connected to the town centre. The application site occupies a highly accessible location with good pedestrian connectivity with the town centre and we therefore fully support the applicant’s suggestion that there are no sequentially preferable alternative edge of centre sites within Penrith. Having regard to guidance contained within the NPPF and PPG, as well as the recent Rushden Lakes appeal decision, we are satisfied with the applicant’s findings that none of the identified sites are suitable and available to accommodate the proposed retail floorspace and, accordingly, we are satisfied that the sequential test is passed. Impact Considerations Paragraph 26 of the NPPF advises that, when assessing applications for retail development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, LPAs should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq.m). This should include assessment of:

The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made.

There is currently no locally adopted threshold for impact assessment for retail development outside town centres within Eden District and accordingly the default threshold of 2,500 sq.m set out in the NPPF is engaged. The retail unit subject of the current proposals extends to 1,976 sq.m and, consequently, there is no policy requirement to assess impact in line with up-to-date guidance within the NPPF and, on this basis, impact considerations would not form a reasonable basis to withhold planning permission in this instance. Notwithstanding this, the Eden Retail Review Update (May 2014) identifies that there is potential for a small amount of additional convenience shopping floorspace within Penrith, equivalent to a small supermarket. There is significantly greater potential to support new comparison shopping development, particularly in Penrith, during the Local Plan period. On this basis, whilst there is no policy requirement to assess impact and, consequently, impact considerations would not form reasonable grounds for withholding planning permission, we do not consider that the current proposals to allow open-A1 retailing at the existing Wickes store would give rise to significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability of Penrith Town Centre in any event.

Conclusions In summary, we are satisfied with the applicant’s conclusions that there are no sequentially preferable sites capable of accommodating the proposed retail floorspace and there is no requirement to consider retail impact in view of the proposed level of floorspace. On this basis, we are of the opinion that the key retail policy tests set out within the NPPF are satisfied. We trust this information is of assistance. Should you wish to discuss this matter please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely,

Gary Swarbrick Associate

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

22

Item 3


Planning Application No: 15/0265 Date Received: 23 March 2015

OS Grid Ref: 351140-529796 Expiry Date: 15 May 2015

Parish: Penrith Ward: Penrith West

Application Type: Full Application

Proposal: Proposed alterations to extend parking layout and servicing reconfiguration

Location: Former Wickes Store, Ullswater Road, Penrith

Applicant: District Estates Limited c/o Smith Nicholas

Agent: J10 Planning Limited

Case Officer: Mr J Tweddle

Reason for Referral: An objector has requested to address the Planning Committee

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

23

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application is approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details and plans hereby approved (location plan P4186_001 and proposed site plan P4186_003 received 19 March 2015) and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. Prior to the operation of the development a landscaping scheme, providing details of the boundary treatment along the north-western boundary of the site, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and this scheme shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the programme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reasons

1. In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.

3. To ensure that the north-western boundary, adjacent to the station carpark, is appropriately screened in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area.


2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the reconfiguration of the service area and parking layout at the former Wickes Store on Ullswater Road in Penrith.

2.1.2 The key proposals are an overall reduction in the service areas on site to maximise the area available for car parking. The proposals will increase the capacity of the carpark from the current 73 spaces to 109 spaces, an increase of 36. This will include six spaces for disabled people.

2.1.3 The applicant’s reasoning for the proposed development is to create a unit that is capable of accommodating a food retailer on site. The required variation of condition to allow unrestricted retail sales from the premises is subject to another planning application and as such does not form part of the planning assessment for this application. It is considered that should permission be granted the proposed works, as outlined in this application, could be implemented separately and regardless of the outcome of the other planning application.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

24


2.2.1 The site is the former Wickes store adjacent to Penrith Railway Station on Ullswater Road in Penrith. The site area is 0.62ha and the floor space of the unit measures approximately 1,976m2.

2.2.2 The site is currently accessed by both pedestrians and vehicles from the A592, Ullswater Road.


Consultee Response

Highways Authority - Cumbria County Council

No objection

4. Representations

4.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 9 April 2015.






Highway safety due to an increase in traffic turning into and out of the site from Ullswater Road.


Application No. Description Outcome

87/0880 Retail non-food store with loading and car parking facilities

Approved 15 October 1987

96/0362 Relaxation of condition on existing planning permission to widen the range of goods which can be sold from the premises

Approved 18 July 1996

13/0712 Application for lawful development certificate to confirm the lawful implementation of application 96/0362 allowing the sale of non-food retail goods (excluding clothing, shoes, toys, and fashion accessories)

Approved 6 November 2013

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

25

6. Policy Context


CS1 – Sustainable Development Principles

CS2 – Locational Strategy

CS25 – Transport & Accessibility

6.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Paragraph 17 – Core planning principles

Section 1 – Building a strong, competitive economy

National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)




i. Whether the development is acceptable in principle

ii. Impact on highway safety

iii. Impact upon the visual character and amenity of the area

7.2 Principle

7.2.1 Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Eden Core Strategy requires that development be located in the most sustainable locations that minimise the need to travel and to encourage journeys that remain necessary to be possible by a variety of sustainable transport modes. CS1 also requires that a sequential approach is followed for land use, advocating where practicable for the conversion or redevelopment of existing buildings and sites which are well located in relation to services and infrastructure.

7.2.2 The site is considered to be in a highly sustainable location on the edge of Penrith Town Centre with good access to existing public transport services provided by both bus and rail. The site is also considered to be highly accessible for pedestrians with good pedestrian links into the site from Ullswater Road and into the Town Centre. Vehicular traffic would continue to access the site from Ullswater Road using the existing site access which is not proposed to be altered.

7.2.3 One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units that the country needs. Furthermore, paragraphs 18 to 20 of the framework require that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system and to proactively meet the development needs of business in order to support an economy fit for the 21st century. It is considered that the proposed development meets these policy requirements, and all those stated above, and as such is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

26

7.3 Impact on highway safety

7.3.1 An objector has raised concerns over highway safety suggesting that the proposal would lead to an increase in traffic accessing the site from Ullswater Road and as a consequence result in dangerous traffic movements that could cause vehicle collisions or endanger children walking to nearby schools. In addition, the objector raises concerns with possible traffic congestion caused by the development and suggests that this would result in ‘traffic tailbacks’ along Ullswater Road.

7.3.2 There is no evidence to support the claims made by the objector regarding this matter and the Highways Authority has not raised this as a concern. With regards to the impacts upon traffic in the area, the applicant, having worked closely with the Highways Authority, has submitted a full Transport Assessment that provides a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis based on traffic survey data and forecast traffic flows for the developed site. The analysis predicts a 10.2% increase in vehicle movements accessing the site during weekday peak times. This is not considered to be excessive and the analysis suggests that the junction with Ullswater Road would operate without any capacity issues. The assessment concludes that the increased traffic associated with the development would not have a material impact on the local highway network and would not give rise to any highways or transport issues. The Highways Authority have not raised any issue with these findings and have no objection to the proposal.

7.3.3 In this regard the proposal is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with policy CS5 of the Eden Core Strategy which requires that new development be focused in the district’s Key Service Centres which are accessible by a variety of modes of transport. Penrith is identified as a Key Service Centre in the Eden Core Strategy and therefore the proposed development at this location is thought to be acceptable in accordance with policy. Furthermore, as promoted by CS5, the applicant has provided a detailed travel plan to monitor increases in traffic to and from the site along with a range of proposals to reduce the reliance on private car journeys and promote the use of public transport and opportunities for cycling and walking for customers and employees to access the site.

7.4 Impact on the visual character and amenity of the area

7.4.1 The current fencing and outside storage racking in the existing servicing area provides a level of screening along the north-western site boundary from the mainline railway and station carpark. The proposed development would likely remove this element of screening and as such have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area. In order to address this it is suggested that a landscaping scheme, to include details of the boundary treatments along the north-western boundary of the site, is required by condition to make the development acceptable.

8. Implications





Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

27

8.3 Environment




8.5 Children


8.6 Human Rights


9. Conclusion


i. The principle of development is accepted and supported by policies CS1 and CS2 of the Eden Core Strategy. Paragraphs 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the NPPF provide support for the proposals.

ii. The proposal is unlikely to give rise to any significant adverse impacts upon the highway network and as such is acceptable in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS5.


Background Papers: Planning File 15/0265


Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

28

Item 4

Date of Committee: 28/05/2015

Planning Application No: 15/0229 Date Received: 11/03/2015

OS Grid Ref: 369055 - 525047 Expiry Date: 06/05/2015

Parish: Dufton Ward: Long Marton

Application Type: Listed building

Proposal: Proposed installation of a flue pipe and retrospective application for the siting of a satellite dish.

Location: Old Dufton Hall Farmhouse, Dufton

Applicant: Mr Parkin

Agent: Graham Norman

Case Officer: Phil Nicholls

Reason for Referral: An objector wishes to present their objections to the Planning Committee

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

29

1. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason In order to comply with the provisions of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2. The development hereby granted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with

the details and plans hereby approved below and shall not be varied other than by prior agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Site Plan – Drg no. 108-11A-01 Rev A Proposed elevations – Drg no. 108-11A-03 Rev B

All received on 03/11/2014

Reason

To ensure a satisfactory development and to avoid any ambiguity as to what constitutes the permission.


2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The proposal is for the installation and relocation of a flue pipe on the south west elevation of the outbuilding and retrospective consent for the siting of a satellite dish. The flue which serves a recently installed biomass boiler is located 4m along the length of the sloping roof of the south west elevation of Old Dufton Hall Farmhouse outbuilding. The flue measures 1.6m in height (1.1m above the ridge height) and 30cm in diameter and will be painted black. The satellite dish, 50cm in diameter, is situated at a height of 3.3m between the outbuilding and north east corner of the original hall.

2.1.2 This application is for listed building consent for the works outlined above. As the flue stands at a height of 1.1m above the ridge height it will require the submission of a full planning application. The applicant is aware of this and will be submitting an application if listed building consent is granted.


2.2.1 Dufton Hall is a Grade II Listed building located in the centre of Dufton. The application relates to the outbuilding attached to the North East Corner of the original hall. The site lies within the centre of the village which is located within the Dufton Conservation Area and the North Pennine Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A number of dwellings are located close to the site to the north with the nearest property being Lwonin Fyeat situated 5m to the north.

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

30


Consultee Response

Conservation Officer The proposals were discussed with the Conservation Officer. It was concluded that satellite dish is well sited to ensure minimal impact. The proposed flue was also considered to have a negligible impact and is therefore considered acceptable.

4. Parish Council/Meeting Response

Please Tick as Appropriate

Parish Council/Meeting

Object Support No Response No View Expressed

Dufton Parish Council

5. Representations

5.1 Letters of consultation were sent to near neighbours and a site notice was posted on 25/03/2015.






- The raising and relocation of an already substantial flue would be highly visible and detract from the character of the listed building.

5.3 Letters of objection raised the following concerns which are non-material considerations:

- The current flue emits smoke towards the neighbouring property of Lwonin Fyeat which is causing a nuisance. The proposals to relocate and increase the height of the flue are not considered to solve this problem. Therefore the flue will continue to cause a nuisance.


Application No Description Outcome

14/0976 Listed building consent for the retention of a satellite dish and flue pipe.

Withdrawn

10/0296 Change of use to residential let. Approved

10/0056 Change of use from storage building to dwelling.

Approved

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

31

6.1 Application 14/0976 was withdrawn following separate correspondence from the Council’s environmental health department which raised serious concerns about the installation of the flue pipe. It was concluded that the flue did not meeting building regulations and action to mitigate the nuisance was being sought. The applicant therefore decided to withdraw the application to seek amendments to the design.

7. Policy Context


CS17 – Principles for the Built (Historic) Environment

Other Material Considerations

National Planning Policy Framework – Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990




8.1.1 Impact of the erection of the satellite dish and flue on the preservation of the listed building its setting and any special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.

8.2 Impact of the development on the preservation of the listed building

8.2.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out a clear presumption that gives considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving a heritage asset and its setting. Section 16.2 states that:

“In considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works the local planning authority or the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses”.

8.2.2 The government’s guidance in the NPPF states that “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation”. Any development should therefore seek to conserve and enhance the special qualities of the historic asset. This approach is also taken by policies CS17 of the Eden Core Strategy which “promote the enhancement of the built environment through the use of high standards of design and sustainable materials”.

8.2.3 The siting and size of the satellite is considered to result in minimal impact on the listed building. The satellite dish is located on the south east elevation on the corner between the roofline of the Old Dufton Hall Farmhouse and the south west elevation of Old Dufton Hall.

8.2.4 The proposed flue is higher than the existing flue for which retrospective permission was sought under 14/0976. The proposed flue is narrow, will be painted back and will be located nearer the main elevation of Old Dufton Hall. It is considered that the flue is

Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

32

not prominent and has a negligible impact on the listed building. It is considered that the flue and satellite dish do not result in significant harm to the heritage asset.

8.2.4 Therefore it is considered that the proposals comply with policies 132 and 134 of the NPPF and policy CS17 of the Eden Core Strategy and will result in negligible harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

8.3 Non Material Considerations

8.3.1 It is noted that a neighbour objection have been received regarding the possible pollution from the flue. This application is for listed building consent only and as such the Council can only consider the impact of the alterations on the fabric and appearance of the listed building. The proposed flue measures a height of 1.1m and therefore would require full planning permission. The applicant has been informed that a full planning application would be required for the proposed flue and intends to submit this application should listed building consent be granted. As part of this application the environmental health department would be consulted to assess the impacts of the proposed flue in relation to emissions. The installation of the satellite dish is permitted development and do not require full planning permission and only requires to be considered under the application for Listed Building Consent.

9. New Homes Bonus

9.1 The New Homes Bonus is not relevant for this application.

10. Implications





10.3 Environment




10.5 Children


10.6 Human Rights


Agenda Item

REPORTS FOR DEBATE

33

11. Conclusion


The proposals result in negligible harm to the significance of the heritage asset and therefore comply with the NPPF, the Core Strategy and with section 66 of the Planning Act 1990.


Background Papers: Planning File


planning committee agenda: 28 may 2015

Documents